Commuting lights

[mig]

i saw this guy late though. far later than i would have liked an alert to his presence on the road if i were driving.

[pwa]

I'm pretty sure we've been here before.
I see plenty of night riding ninjas and that's just the thing, I can see them.
Most of us can agree that the use of DRL's and being lit in poor weather and/or night time can only assist in us not being squished but hitting a cyclist and blaming his/her lack of lights just isn't good enough. They CAN be seen. There's no point saying, "Look at that eejit with no lights! He's asking to be hit!" If they're visible enough to warrant a comment then they're visible enough.

If a driver hits an unlit and darkly dressed cyclist at night I would blame the driver and the cyclist. Mostly the driver, but not entirely. I saw and avoided hitting a cyclist a few nights ago, but his / her total lack of lights / hi-viz / reflectors combined with the darkness and the rain on my windscreen made him / her a real test for my vision and alertness. We all have a part to play in avoiding collisions and their consequences.

[beardy]

If a driver hits an unlit and darkly dressed cyclist at night I would blame the driver and the cyclist.

You might but the legal system going through all its stages would clear the motorist of any blame.
So it is common enough for forum members to go to lengths to make sure their lights and reflectors are all up to (and exceeding) the legal requirements, to remove that excuse*.

It doesnt work though, the motorists are still let off.

I have to admit that there are places where lights and reflectors do make the difference between a cyclist being visible or not, when they are being obscured from view by other bright lights.

[Tangled Metal]

That's the point, no lights doesn't mean your not visible just that visibility may come too late to react safely or indeed prevent hitting them. No matter what you say u b believe we all should be responsible for ourselves first. As a cyclist I think that's lights and reflectives at night.

[mjr]

my commutes in the past few weeks have seen a noticeable amount of cyclists riding before 8am with no lights at all. is this a nationwide thing?

Sunrise here is 0751 now and it was really quite sunny yesterday, so probably I set off about 8am and didn't feel lights were necessary at all. The only near-miss I had was someone reversing blind out into a bus stop on the A10 (old house - they'd never be allowed to build a drive like that now) and I don't think lights would have made any difference.

Just saw a TV advert for an Astra. They seem actually proud that their LED lights dazzle animals!

[[XAP]Bob]

i saw this guy late though. far later than i would have liked an alert to his presence on the road if i were driving.

So you should have been driving slower to be driving "such that you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear"

Note - you can see to be clear
It doesn't say - where you can't see an obstruction

It says that you have to positively see it to be clear

[Bicycler]

Bob's is the version we (should) all remember but the current Highway Code is surprisingly slightly stronger in this regard "drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear".

[mig]

i saw this guy late though. far later than i would have liked an alert to his presence on the road if i were driving.

So you should have been driving slower to be driving "such that you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear"

Note - you can see to be clear
It doesn't say - where you can't see an obstruction

It says that you have to positively see it to be clear

i was biking to work up a slight slope & looking up into the headlights of an oncoming truck. in front of that truck was the the cyclist who i could only see as he partially blocked one of that vehicle's headlights.
he affected me as it was a narrow road and the truck had braked rather strongly and was pulling into the centre of the road / over the white line and thereby giving me a close pass.

[[XAP]Bob]

i saw this guy late though. far later than i would have liked an alert to his presence on the road if i were driving.

So you should have been driving slower to be driving "such that you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear"

Note - you can see to be clear
It doesn't say - where you can't see an obstruction

It says that you have to positively see it to be clear

i was biking to work up a slight slope & looking up into the headlights of an oncoming truck. in front of that truck was the the cyclist who i could only see as he partially blocked one of that vehicle's headlights.
he affected me as it was a narrow road and the truck had braked rather strongly and was pulling into the centre of the road / over the white line and thereby giving me a close pass.

Frankly with most bike lights you'd lose them in front of truck lights anyway...

[Brucey]

In the past I always felt that I could see as well as I needed to at night.

But these days I certainly don't feel like that at all. The main problem for me is dazzle, and it seems to me that the problem only occurs because there are so many daft *expletive deleted* who insist on using lights with a very high source brightness for no good reason.

I find myself getting annoyed on shared use paths by other cyclists almost as much (sometimes more) than when I'm on the road, from cars etc.

Anyone who thinks that they can see where they are going when either

a) there is something with bright lights coming the other way and/or
b) there has just been something with bright lights within your field of view

is probably just fooling themselves IMHO.

As an experiment, try these things;

1) stop by the side of the road, and keep looking up it in the same way as you would if you were still moving. Put (or note) something in your field of view of normal reflectivity; the kind of thing that you need to be able to see in order to ride safely; e.g. a coke can lying in the road. Ask yourself if you can still see such things whilst someone (someone with 'normal' modern lights...) is coming the other way.

2) Right after someone has passed thus, close your eyes and ask yourself if there is an after-image of any kind.

I'd wager that the answer to the first question is 'no' and the second question 'yes'.

This being the case, anytime there is someone coming the other way you would pretty much need to be stopped already in order to comply with the highway code. Anytime there is an after-image in your eye from a bright light, those affected parts of your retina are basically useless for their normal night-time purpose for 30s to a minute, even if your iris is fully open (which it probably won't be after some *expletive deleted* has just shone a bright light into your eyes).

Should the after-image fall in your fovea centralis (which it probably will do if you even glance towards the bright light) then you have lost nearly all of your useful vision until the after-image clears, i.e. you might as well be functionally blind so far as seeing where you are going in the dark is concerned.

So, net, the widespread use of 'bright lights' seems to me not to improve road safety, not from the POV of seeing where you are going, anyway....

cheers

[Bicycler]

People who justify excessively bright lights are talking about their own ability to see in front using their own lights. The capacity of those lights to blind others does not appear to be a concern.

[mig]

true.

i have a very steep climb on my route home (that tests the mig legs on fixed each night ) and i find looking up into lights of vehicles coming down the other side even worse than on flat roads. i mainly pull the peak of my cap down and focus on the road only a few yards ahead. no - i wouldn't see a can in the road very easily in these circumstances either!

[Bicycler]

Another thing that will be affecting many of us (and indeed other road users) to a greater or lesser extent is that night vision worsens significantly with age.

[millimole]

I'm not sure what this adds to the discussion but I'll say it anyway....
I've just bought a new car - a Renault Kadjar - with LED headlights, I suspect these lights are what some might say are 'excessively bright'. They are self-levelling, auto-dipping and fully compliant with all current legislation - they are also the whitest lights I've ever had on a car. I think the 'whiteness' of the lights compared to older tungsten, and even halogen bulbs might be the issue with 'excessive brightness' that many complain of with HID and the newest LED lights.
I'm not, of course, saying there aren't pillocks driving around on main beam lights, with badly adjusted or illegal lights, but the vast majority of functioning lights are legal.
The beef - and I certainly agree there is an issue - must be with legislators and manufacturers to produce lights that do not compromise the safety of the weaker victims in the lighting arms race. Don't pillory the driver.

[Bicycler]

As regards cars that's mostly true and I agree, though a significant proportion seem to be aimed too highly. I think I was the one who was on about people defending "excessively bright lights" and I was referring to cycle lights at that point.